Organizational structures are information architecture

The other day I realized that the challenges that management face when deciding an organizational structure are not very different from the problems that web managers have when creating or modifying information architecture. The structure of an organization is information architecture since that structure defines how information flows.

However, while we have tools that we use to verify whether a web site’s structure makes sense to its users, we don’t do the same when restructuring a company or organization. But we should do it and we should do it with its “users” – the staff.

So let’s change that! Let’s use online tools to improve the next restructuring process of your non-profit or international organization. I’m mainly thinking of card sorting here, more specifically of anonymous online card sorting.

Card sort your organization

The reason we are sometimes confronted with less than ideal structures is not because management is incompetent. It is because – beyond your immediate line manager – they only have a very vague idea of what exactly your job is. For them it might not be obvious with whom you need to coordinate. That is understandable: beyond a certain size it is impossible for senior management to know details about the responsibilities of every single employee. The problem is that the people who know, i.e. those who do the actual work, are frequently not consulted because that is considered to be too time consuming.

That doesn’t have to be the case: You could easily create a card sorting exercise for each department and ask all staff to participate online. The result would be that Senior Management would see the organization from the ground perspective. Tools like Websort or Optimalsort let you easily collate the results so that you can see where there is broad agreement. If three thirds of a department think that a certain function is essential for their work, then that’s probably true. Doing the exercise anonymously and only would mean that everybody’s voice counts the same and that people aren’t as likely to follow opinion leaders but share their honest point of view.

I’m sure that this approach would lead to some interesting revelations about how the organization or company really works. It would also give people a sense of ownership of the results and could achieve an understanding for the compromises that have to be made. I’ll propose it next time we are being restructured.

What do you think? Does my idea make sense? Can you crowdsource the structure of an organization? Please leave a comment and share your opinion.

Related posts:

1. Six reasons why Seth Godin is wrong about non-profits
2. Don’t split design and CMS – lessons learned from a web relaunch
3. Eight impressive recommendations on website governance and strategy

If you are one of the 47 per cent of my visitors that use Firefox then you will see that the text runs over the “Facebook Share”-button on the right. I’m aware of this problem but don’t know how to solve it.

I want the Facebook button to appear underneath the Twittley button (or the other way round), but of course I want the text to wrap around it.

Currently I’m  applying this wrapper style to the FB sharecount-plugin:

float:right;margin-right:-57px; margin-top:82px

In Chrome and IE 8.0 that does the job, but in Firefox 3.5 the text runs over the button. Any idea?

Related posts:

1. Why “RSS to Facebook” is bad for you

Lesson learned: Don’t split the contracts for the design-part and the technical implementation!

If I could go back in time and do one thing differently, this would be it.

Don’t get me wrong: I love the CMS we bought, I think the design company has done a great job and I think the company that is implementing the CMS is also doing their part wonderfully.

However, I totally underestimated the amount of time and coordination needed on our side for the design company and the implementation partner to work together effectively.

Even though both partners have been trying to do their best to overcome all problems, we still lost a lot of time, energy and ultimately some money because the process was much more difficult, than if it had all been done by the same company.

Different interpretations

The main problem was that the two companies frequently had very different interpretations and expectations regarding what each side’s responsibilities were.

Sometimes, when A heard that B was going to do X, there were very different definitions of X. And in the end, we as a client were stuck in the middle. This is not the fault of either party, it’s just one of the things that happen. Or maybe it’s our fault for not spending more time on defining exactly what each little thing means. Then again, if you wanna define every little detail then you will spend a year writing the contract.

However, my point is that if both design and technical implementation were done by the same company, then this wouldn’t even be an issue. In that case we could simply say “We don’t care who inside your company is responsible for this detail. It is your responsibility.”

The original rationale – find the best for each part

The original decision to give each part of the project to a different partner sounded good at that time:

We wanted to find the best design company independently from their technical skills and the best technical solution independently from their design skills. And while it should be possible to implement any (not too extravagant) design in any modern CMS, it would have been extremely helpful for everyone if the design company had been familiar with the product.

Thus, the next time I’m doing this kind of project, I’ll make sure to get it all from one source.

Have you had similar experiences when relaunching existing or creating new websites?

Related posts:

1. Flickr for non-profits – 8 lessons learned
2. From advocacy to authority – how to create an open source documentary to help your cause